Quote:
Originally Posted by nameless  My comments above put aside, I still like the way one particular 7-year-old responded: "I can't give you a smart answer to a dumb question." |
so why is it a logical nonsense? Because it provides a false assumption hence a false conclusion.
This fallacy assumes that an all powerful god can create something more powerful than itself. This can not be, because god by this assumption is the all powerful and if it can create something more powerfull than itself, it can not be all powerful. God in this assumption can be god and not god at the same time and at the same respect. Violates the basic Law of Non-Contradiction.
Second. It also assumes the inclusion of two mutually exclusive existent concepts, that of an unstopable being and an immovable being. This fallacy is actually a variant of another fallacy. "What will happen if an unstopable object collides with an immovable object." Unthinkable. One must choose between the two or assume that both be false.
Third. It is a trick question design for the foolish. Any sane atheist will not and should not use this argument as a proof of the non-existence of GOd